Other ecoboost engines vs ours

[db_tanker]

so I've been reading more and more about how there is a new lawsuit on Ford Ecoboost engines. Seems there is a bad design idea floating around that has the 1.5,1.6,2.0 EB's having head gasket failure or something allowing coolant to leak into the cylinders? I know our 2.3's are slightly different in design but is there any cause for concern here? Most manufactures tend to keep general designs as similar as possible to keep machine costs down.

What do you all think?

D

Sponsored

 

[Lost19Ranger]

From what I know, the 1.6 had a head gasket issue, and the 2.3 on the rs that was do to the factory using the wrong one. But that was it at least when I worked with Ford for 4 years.
The last 2.0 I’ve had 2 of them were great no issues my ranger knock on wood love it so far.
Maybe someone else knows something I do but just a bit of what I know.

 

[Engmus]

I had a FCST until 100k miles, and had zero issues unmodded. No HG Issues, the 2.3 on the RS had a part number issue early on that Ford corrected and fixed and I haven't heard any other issues with the 2.3, other then forcing too much power through them and making them Ecobooms, instead of Ecoboosts.

I think the only concerns for the 2.3 are two...

1. Too much HP\TQ after modifying, from what I have gathered is the 2.3 is already turned up pretty good, although by my signature you can tell some of us are turning that volume knob to 11.

2. Carbon Buildup, no proof of this yet, but without some port side or injectors to spray fuel on the back side of the valves, carbon buildup with or without a catch-can is likely in all our futures.

 

[Markubis]

My 1980 Mercury Capri had a 2.3 liter inline 4 in it and I'm pretty sure the 2.3 EB is a derivative on that engine.
My point being, the 2.3 inline has a solid pedigree behind it.

 

[Floyd]

My 1980 Mercury Capri had a 2.3 liter inline 4 in it and I'm pretty sure the 2.3 EB is a derivative on that engine.
My point being, the 2.3 inline has a solid pedigree behind it.

Not even remotely related, the Lima engine was amazing, but very primitive and much simpler in comparison. Of course it was developed a half century ago.
It did go on to become the very strong and reliable turbo version used in the SVO, the Turbo bird, and even the GT Mustang.

 

[Kfd1640]

I would be interested in what member P. A. Schilke has regarding your question. I believe he was on the engineering side of the Ranger platform.

 

[landiscarrier]

I had 2 Focus ST's prior to my ranger a 13" and 17" with the 2.0. The 13" had 130,000 miles on it when I sold it.....the kid who bought it blew up the engine...from what I know he beat the crap out of it! The 17" only had 45k on it when I traded it in and I had zero issues with it.

 

[Markubis]

Not even remotely related, the Lima engine was amazing, but very primitive and much simpler in comparison. Of course it was developed a half century ago.
It did go on to become the very strong and reliable turbo version used in the SVO, the Turbo bird, and even the GT Mustang.

Derivative

 

[dtech]

I would be interested in what member P. A. Schilke has regarding your question. I believe he was on the engineering side of the Ranger platform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto_engine

Read through (and donated to wiki) this and the engine was used in multiple Ford vehicles and variations of the 2.3, Ford even stuck a turbo on a carbureted 2.3 and put in the mustang II, brought back memories of a friend who asked me to try and "fix" his which stalled constantly and ran like dog poo much of the time, I had to laugh as the article said you could buy a wastegate from Ford, so they actually sold this carbureted , no wastegate turbo charged mustang - if you tried that today the class action suits would be abundant.

 

[wanted33]

I understand that some of these early builds had some problems, but competition being as it is Ford cannot afford to let those problems continue. In the beginning folks were worried about the carbon build up in the F-150's with the 3.5L EB. But, I have several friends that have over 100K miles on theirs, with no problems concerning the build up on the under side of the valves. I also have a long time friend that bought one of the first Rangers in my town. His only problem is the 10 spd tranny making hard shifts which can be taken care of if he would just take it back to the dealer for reprogramming. Hard head just won't listen to me though.

 

[Floyd]

Derivative

Not at all, you might argue that the 2.3L EcoBoost was a "derivative" of the 2.3L Duratech , but not the 2.3L Lima engine offered in the Pinto, which could be called a "derivative" of the 2.0L Cologne engine offered as an option on early Pintos.

 

[Coyote Chaser]

I "assume" everyone understands that the 2.3 Ecoboost motor has an open deck, where the 2.0 Ecoboost has a semi closed deck? Other than that, many parts are similar and even interchangeable.
Where you guys can help me, is concerning what type of connecting rods your 2.3 Ecoboost motor is equipped with and if Ford has made any changes to your motors since 2019? Especially with the Rangers equipped with the optional 7500 lbs tow package?

 

[Trigganometry]

I "assume" everyone understands that the 2.3 Ecoboost motor has an open deck, where the 2.0 Ecoboost has a semi closed deck? Other than that, many parts are similar and even interchangeable.
Where you guys can help me, is concerning what type of connecting rods your 2.3 Ecoboost motor is equipped with and if Ford has made any changes to your motors since 2019? Especially with the Rangers equipped with the optional 7500 lbs tow package?

As far as I know every Ranger 5G has the same engine and transmission. Depending on 2x or 4X is the differences. The tow capacity is adjusted for 4X trucks IIRC

 

[VAMike]

As far as I know every Ranger 5G has the same engine and transmission. Depending on 2x or 4X is the differences. The tow capacity is adjusted for 4X trucks IIRC

the payload capacity is adjusted for every option, because it's affected by the gross weight of the truck. supercrew, 4x4, etc all weigh more so reduce the payload. tow rating is the same for all, but the amount you can tow may be limited by tongue weight+everything else in the truck (like people) vs payload capacity.

 

[Marpater]

The answers lie within

https://www.ranger5g.com/forum/threads/2019-ranger-2-3l-ecoboost-engine-intro.1018/

Sponsored